# Realen Valley Forge Greenes Associates v. Upper Merion Township Zoning Hearing Board

> Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania · January 8, 2008 · 941 A.2d 739

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9702039

## Case

- **Full name:** REALEN VALLEY FORGE GREENES ASSOCIATES v. UPPER MERION TOWNSHIP ZONING HEARING BOARD and Upper Merion Township Appeal Of: Thomas J. Timoney, as Receiver for the Hankin Family Partnership and the Hankin Family Partnership
- **Court:** Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** January 8, 2008
- **Citations:** 941 A.2d 739; 47 A.L.R. 6th 731; 2008 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 5
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Kelley
- **Judges:** McGinley, Pellegrini, Kelley
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9702039

## Opinion text

DISSENTING OPINION BY
Senior Judge KELLEY.
I respectfully dissent.
Rule 2327(3) requires that a person not a party to an action be permitted to intervene where the petitioner “could have joined as an original party in the action or could have been joined therein.” Pa. R.C.P. No. 2327(3). There is no dispute that at the time the action was filed in 1997, Hankin could have joined as an original party and may have necessarily been joined therein because they owned the Property at that time. The rule speaks to the time the action was filed and is silent with regard to ongoing status.
Nevertheless, assuming that a party must demonstrate a right to intervene at the time intervention is sought, not just when the zoning action is initially brought, Hankin continues to maintain a legally enforceable interest in the Property pursuant to Rule 2327(4) justifying intervention. *746 While Hankin has sold the Property to Realen, Hankin has not divested itself of all legal and equitable interest in the Property. In fact, litigation over the Property and the agreed upon purchase price is ongoing. The additional purchase price is contingent upon zoning approvals for the development of the Property. The greater the level of development allowed by the zoning appeal, the greater the additional purchase price. Hankin has also filed an action seeking to rescind the purchase agreement with Realen and re-take possession and title of the Property. Under these unique circumstances, Hankin maintains a viable legal interest in the manner in which the Property will be developed. Therefore, I believe that Hankin should be permitted to intervene.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9702039. Public record. Not legal advice.